Agenda - 11-25-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I • 1 • § 8.01[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-2 - • z4 § 8.01 Introduction ' [1]—Background • F3` Traditional zoning ordinances are essentially prohibitory in na- . ture. Their purposes are: to prevent the intermingling of incompati- - • • ble uses;t to protect against invasions of light and air caused by urban . congestion;2 to curb development where public services are insuf- . . .ficient;3 and to limit the density and scale of neighborhoods.' The •. 4 fl t See Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365,47 S Ct 114.71 L Ed • 303 (1926). . See also Toll,"Zoning for Amenities," 20 Law &Conternp Prob 266(1955). • 2See: . United Stater: Gorieb v. Fox,274 US 693,47 S Ct 675, 71 L Ed 1228.(1927). . New York Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 NY-288, 150 NE 120(1925). • . 3 See: '. Connecticut:Bertram v. Zoning,Comni'n, 136 Conn 89, 63 A2d•308 (1949). Massachusetts'Town of Marblehead v. Rosenthal,316 Mass•124, 55'NE2d 13 • (1944). . ' 4 Traditional devices for controlling density are limits on building height(Welch•,.' - V. Swasey, 193 Mass 364,79 NE 745(1907),aff'd 214 US.91,29 S Ct 567,214 L • A• Ed 923(1909)),and regulation of courts,front,side and rear yards.Also important are tiebniques which are based on the relationship between lot area and some other rc - unit,such as a dwelling,family,living room or bedroom.See e.&„Carey v.Cassidy, . w . - 163 A2d 793(RI 1954).Also,see Toll, "Zoning for Amenities,"20 Law&Con- tempt tempt Prob 268,272-273 the author discusses minimum lot regulaa- tions as follows: . • "The controls give the planner a virtually immediate and quite accurate idea . of allowable density levels.All that he must know is readily available: lot area sizes and family sizes or average number of persons per room in question.Note, : however,that the techniques are applied to residential areas and not to commer- cial districts. '. • "These methods of density regulation have been criticized for the economic al inequities they encourage by putting a premium on homes principally for the large II or affluent family,thus allowing a zoning ordinance to exercise Iess than direct influence over building development.At bottom is the vexed question of"snob • zoning" and the earlier inquiry as to what it is our communities desire as a physical setting.Probably the most readily identified and intelligible answer today , comes from the wealthier dormitory suburbs whose residents quite clearly and 'f understandably prefer economic class homogeneity with its attendant symbols. The ample house on a spacious lot is such a mark.The proof of reasonableness sought by the courts here is a test of fact.Beyond this are challenging problems • in social philosophy which cut across class lines and through many other areas of zoning controls." (Footnotes omitted.) ? . . C FF M I't ii•^